Truth in Science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of the series on

Intelligent design

Concepts

Irreducible complexity Specified complexity Fine-tuned universe Intelligent designer Theistic realism

Intelligent design movement

Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture Wedge strategy Critical Analysis of Evolution Teach the Controversy Intelligent design in politics Santorum Amendment

Reactions to Intelligent design

Jewish · Roman Catholic Scientific organizations

Truth in Science is a United Kingdom organisation which promotes "teach the controversy" ^[1], a strategy to get Intelligent Design, a pseudoscientific theory of "origins", and teleological argument for the existence of God ^[2], ^[3], taught alongside evolution in school science lessons ^[4]. The organisation promotes the idea that there is scientific controversy about the validity of Darwinian evolution, a view rejected by leading scientific organisations in the United Kingdom ^[5], and the United States ^{[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]} (see List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design). Consequently, the organisation argues that schools should adopt a "critical approach" to Darwinian evolution in science lessons ^[14], and a "fair and accurate" representation of "alternative viewpoints", such as Creationism and Intelligent Design. The organisation cites an opinion poll of United Kingdom citizens [1], which it says demonstrates popular support among the non-scientific public for the inclusion of Intelligent Design in school science lessons. This view, that the truth of a theory depends on its democratic support, contrasts with the scientific method which holds that useful theories are good at explaining empirical evidence ^[15] (and not necessarily popular or widely believed). In response to the introduction of the controversial theory of Intelligent Design in European countries, the Royal Society stated that "intelligent design has far more in common with a religious belief in creationism than it has with science" and raised concerns that "young people are poorly served by deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific knowledge and understanding in order to promote particular religious beliefs" ^[16].

Contents 1 Projects 1.1 Focus on parents 1.2 Textbook reviews 1.3 News blog 2 Strategies for influencing science education 2.1 Argumentum ad populum 2.2 Openings in National Curriculum 2.3 Information pack controversy 2.4 Bypassing peer review 3 Truth in Science, Christianity and Creationism 3.1 Membership 3.2 Views on age of the earth 4 Truth in Science and Intelligent Design 4.1 Basic types 4.2 Bacterial flagellum 5 Supporters 6 Critical reception 6.1 From notable religious figures and organisations 6.2 From notable secular figures and organisations 7 Organisation 7.1 Board of Directors 7.2 Council of Reference 7.3 Scientific Panel 8 See also 9 References 10 External links 11 Media

[edit] Projects

Truth in Science offers a number of online and mail order resources, including downloadable lesson plans ^[17], and DVD packs, including "Where does the Evidence Lead?" and "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" by Illustra Media ^[18] and featuring prominent members of the Discovery Institute ^[19]. Truth in Science denies that these materials focus upon creationism, ^[20]. but instead focus upon the creationist offshoot of Intelligent Design ^[21].

Truth in Science argue that "controversy" over origins can be taught under GCSE Specifications, and that none of the United Kingdom exam boards exclude the teaching of an explanation for the origin of life which differs from "purely naturalistic terms", such as Intelligent Design.

"None of the exam boards require pupils to know that evolutionary theory has serious limitation and that some aspects of the origin of life and the world have not been explained in purely naturalistic terms. None mention that many scientists believe that the origins of biological complexity lie in intelligent design, rather than Darwinian evolution. None suggest that candidates can hold views about the origin of life and the natural world which require the intervention of an intelligent designer. However, GCSE Specifications do present some opportunities to teach the current scientific controversy over origins. Pupils must learn about the nature of scientific enquiry; how scientific controversies arise; and how science intersects with cultural, moral, religious and social views. Several examination boards mention evolution in these contexts." ^[22] -- Truth in Science, Introduction to GCSEs.

[edit] Focus on parents

Truth in Science offers a resource page for the parents of United Kingdom school children, divided into three categories: Balance, Moral and spiritual aspects, and Action ^[23]. The focus of these propositions includes the issue of where humans came from, the implications of origins on the education of children, and the way in which the answers to these questions "influence their ideas about morality, culture and God."

Balance: "Unfortunately, many educators and textbooks give very one-sided teaching on origins, and are highly intolerant of alternatives. They teach the evolution of all life from simple chemicals by a purposeless, blind process as scientific fact. They dismiss all alternatives as non-scientific and unsupported by evidence." Moral and spiritual aspects: "Teaching on origins has many implications for society, culture and religion. Both Darwinists and Darwin-doubters admit that theories of origins have enormous moral and ethical implications. Many prominent advocates of Darwinism, such as Richard Dawkins, Steve Jones and Lewis Wolpert, are 'distinguished supporters of humanism' (according to the British Humanist Association). Anyone doubting this should read Richard Dawkins' latest book: The God Delusion." Action: "What your child is taught at school about origins may profoundly affect his or her attitudes and future life. Are you aware of what your child is being taught, and have you ever discussed this with his or her science teacher? Does your school take a fair and balanced approach to the teaching of origins in science?" -- Truth in Science - Parents.

[edit] Textbook reviews

In addition to their focus upon the parents of United Kingdom school children, Truth in Science offers a list of GCSE, AS, and A-Level science textbook reviews ^[24]. In their review of A-Level Biology. Phillips, W. D., and T. J. Chilton. 1994. Oxford University Press, Oxford ^[25], Truth in Science stated that the publication "overstates the case for evolution, failing to present the limitations of the evidence." According to the organisation, "the book fails to mention that many missing "missing links" provide evidence against evolution", and so the emphasis on a negative argument against the evidence for evolution demonstrates the presence of a "controversy", and that alternative theories may explain those gaps as a consequence. In response to the alleged textbook shortcomings, Truth in Science questioned whether the book addressed "Teaching the controversy", citing that the book portrayed the opponents of evolution as reluctant to accept the findings of evolutionary biology on the exclusive grounding of their religious convictions, and not the "significant scientific debate over evolution". According to the textbook reviewer, the publishers did not account for the purported scientific controversy over the peppered moth ^[26], and that proceedings in mainstream evolutionary biology "fails to mention significant scientific debate over evolution" by lumping alternative perspectives under the one umbrella of "Special Creation".

Truth in Science supplies visitors to their main site with a review of Biological Science 1 and 2. Soper, R. (Ed.) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge ^[27]. The reviewer accused the publishers of failing to "give a fair representation of Intelligent Design or Creationism as alternatives to evolution", and that the authors fail to consider "doubting" Darwinism as a scientific theory, while concurrently endorsing theistic evolution as mutually compatible with the current scientific outlook. The textbook reviewer concluded the article with a summary on the purported endorsement of eugenics by the textbook authors:

With Darwinian logic, the authors advocate a limited form of eugenics in society: "There are strong arguments for the excercise [sic.] of limited forms of eugenic practice...the dangers of eugenics lie in their possible abuse." (p. 918) -- Truth In Science, review of Biological Science 1 & 2 - Cambridge University Press.

[edit] News blog

Truth in Science run a News Blog on their main website ^[28], which features articles on areas such as education policy, current affairs programmes, newspaper editorials, and provides a general critique of mainstream evolutionary science.

[edit] Strategies for influencing science education

[edit] Argumentum ad populum

According to a cited Ipsos MORI poll of United Kingdom citizens ^[29], there exists popular support for Intelligent Design, and Creationism among the non-scientific public. Truth in Science cited this poll as evidence of a "modern controversy" over "Darwin's theory of evolution and the neo-Darwinian synthesis", and that this has "considerable social, spiritual, moral and ethical implications" for the teaching of science.

[edit] Openings in National Curriculum

Truth in Science believes that the United Kingdom National Curriculum Key Stages 3 and 4 allow the teaching of alternative views to Evolution in GCSE and A-Level science lessons ^[30].

"Students need to adopt a critical, questioning frame of mind, understanding how science impacts society and their lives. Origins are not exempt from this emphasis, though the degree to which discussion of alternatives to evolution is required differs between examination boards. Older GCSE specifications, most of which are still being taught through the 2006/07 school year, also present legitimate opportunities to teach the current scientific controversy over origins." ^[31] -- Truth in Science, GCSE Biology.

Truth in Science model their approach to the parents of United Kingdom school children by quoting passages and key phrases from the National Curriculum Key Stages 3 and 4, which they say, endorses their stance on the teaching of "moral and spiritual" aspects in science lessons ^[32]. Truth in Science point out that the National Curriculum lays down "minimum standards" which do not restrict the teaching of topics omitted in those guidelines ^[33]. On their National Curriculum page, Truth in Science claim, for example, that Lord Filkin, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Education and Skills, endorsed the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools on 21 February 2005, by quoting him as saying: "Intelligent design theory could be discussed in schools, but only in the context of being one of a range of views on evolution that students might consider and evaluate against the evidence" ^{[34] [35]}. In a Newsnight interview, on Monday 27 November 2006, [2] Jeremy Paxman asked Andy McIntosh of Truth in Science, as to whether his organisation had been "economical with the truth" regarding the omission of Lord Filkin's final sentence, in an earlier official Truth in Science letter. Paxman stated that Filkin's answer implied that students would discard Intelligent Design once they evaluated the theory against the evidence. In his response, McIntosh said that the statement did not imply that students should discard Intelligent Design, and that evolution and Intelligent Design had "important philosophical implications". Truth in Science have since included Lord Filkin's final sentence of his House of Lords statement, on their website^{[citation needed]}.

[edit] Information pack controversy

In September, 2006, Truth in Science sent resource packs on Intelligent Design to the head of science at all United Kingdom secondary schools ^[36]. Some commentators believe that creationism is no longer an American phenomenon ^[37], and that British science risks "sleepwalking into a future shaped by extremists" ^[38]. According to New Scientist, 59 schools around the United Kingdom use, or plan to use the Truth in Science information packs ^[39]. The New Scientist article stated that Truth in Science circulated the material with the intention of countering the teaching of evolution in science classes, and that the information packs "promote the notion that life on Earth was created through intelligent design, a euphemism for the biblical story of creation".

Truth in Science believes that schools could provide more information to pupils about alternative explanations for the origin and development of biological structures. They hold that a majority of "Darwinists" dogmatically impose naturalistic explanations for the universe, discourage young scientists from challenging scientific paradigms ^[40], and so unfairly rule out God, and other supernatural agents from the scientific method. Truth in Science raises these objections on their frequently asked questions page: "Anything which involves God or the supernatural is therefore outside of science. They claim that theories involving creation or intelligent design are unscientific. Darwinism is the only theory we have which claims to explain the origin of life and its diversity without involving God or the supernatural, and so is seen by many scientists as the only scientific theory of origins. Many scientists also believe that science is the only way we have of knowing anything, and finding truth" ^[41]. According to the Truth in Science frequently asked questions page, British school textbooks "usually mention creationists in their chapters on evolution, but misrepresent their views", and that "new advances in science often begin with just a few scientists who are prepared to risk questioning the reigning paradigm". On the same page, Truth in Science provide a link to "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" ^[42], hosted on the Discovery Institute sister project web-server by The Center for Science and Culture.

The organisation cited a passage from the national curriculum, which they say opens science lessons to the coverage of "alternative theories", which according to their resource pack, includes the controversial new idea of Intelligent Design, which directly challenges naturalistic evolution by limiting changes within structures to microevolution, and by appealing to a supernatural ^{[43] [44]} intelligence as the designer of new species.

"Pupils should be taught… how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence (for example, Darwin's theory of evolution)" The National Curriculum for Key Stage 4 Science (Sc1: Scientific enquiry). Few schools have taught this controversy. This is partly because many popular textbooks present Darwinism as the only scientific theory of origins and give little coverage to alternative theories, sometimes misrepresenting them." ^[45] -- Truth in Science, Main

The BBC News website reported the reaction to the information packs from the United Kingdom Department for Education and Skills: "Neither creationism nor intelligent design are taught as a subject in schools, and are not specified in the science curriculum. The national curriculum for science clearly sets down that pupils should be taught that the fossil record is evidence for evolution, and how variation and selection may lead to evolution or extinction." ^[46] -- DfES Spokesperson, BBC News.

Speaking in the House of Commons, on November 1, 2006, The Right Hon. Jim Knight, Labour MP for Dorset South ^[47], and Minister of State at the Department for Education and Skills, the Minister for Schools, criticised Truth In Science, their information packs, and Intelligent Design creationism, citing them as unsuitable for the United Kingdom science curriculum. In answer to a question regarding what the Secretary of State for Education and Skills would do in response to the information packs, Knight said:

"Neither intelligent design nor creationism are recognised scientific theories and they are not included in the science curriculum, the Truth in Science information pack is therefore not an appropriate resource to support the science curriculum. The national curriculum for science clearly sets down that pupils should be taught: how uncertainties in scientific knowledge and scientific ideas change over time; the role of the scientific community in validating these changes; variation within species can lead to evolutionary changes; and, similarities and differences between species can be measured and classified," ^[48] -- Jim Knight [holding answer 18 October 2006] 1 Nov 2006 : Column 456W

[edit] Bypassing peer review

To date, the Intelligent Design movement have yet to publish an article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. In October 2006, The Independent newspaper reported that the primary aim of Truth in Science is to promote alternative views on origins by way of bypassing scientific peer review, and so therefore encourage schools to allow "14-year-old" GCSE students the opportunity to review the "controversy" over origins themselves, in science lessons ^[49].

Scientific organisations in the United States have stated that the Intelligent Design movement rejects the process of normal scientific peer review. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, for example, holds that Intelligent Design and related concepts have yet to benefit from the peer review process. In criticising the advocates of Intelligent Design for creating an ad-hoc peer review system associated with the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, the AAAS said that ISCID's "journal" was critical of standard procedures in scientific peer review, and so given the broad scientific criticism of ID, Intelligent Design advocates tended upon the consistent publication of their material outside of normal scientific literature ^[50].

On 19 October 2005, Michael Behe, a leading proponent of Intelligent Design, and inventor of the term "irreducible complexity", testified to the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, a trial which saw a direct challenge to the inclusion of a textbook mentioning Intelligent Design in a local Dover school science curriculum. Eric Rothschild, a partner at the law firm, Pepper Hamilton, and plaintiff for the litigants, questioned Behe on day 12 of the case, in which he proposed that there were no peer reviewed articles supported by experiments or calculations published by anyone who advocated Intelligent Design. In his response, Behe agreed that this was indeed the case, and that his book, Darwin's Black Box, contained no new research, or data ^[51]. In his decision over the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, Judge John Jones III, handed down a ruling that Intelligent Design had failed to generate peer-reviewed publications, nor had it gained acceptance within the scientific community ^[52].

[edit] Truth in Science, Christianity and Creationism

[edit] Membership

Part of the series on

Creationism

History of creationism Neo-Creationism

Christian views

Day-age creationism Gap Creationism Old Earth creationism Progressive creationism Theistic evolution Young Earth creationism

Non-Christian views

Hindu · Islamic · Jewish

Creation Theology

Creation in Genesis Genesis as an allegory Framework interpretation Omphalos hypothesis

Creation science

Baraminology Flood geology Intelligent design

Controversy

Politics of creationism ... in public education History Teach the Controversy Associated articles This box: view • talk • edit

There is evidence that a number of Truth in Science members are Evangelical Christians, and are members of other Christian organisations ^[53].

[edit] Views on age of the earth

Truth in Science promotes the neo-creationist theory of Intelligent Design. However, one front-line member, board member Professor Andrew McIntosh ^[54] has also written a book called "Genesis for Today" ^[55] which argues for a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis. During a BBC Northern Ireland radio debate, broadcast on Sunday, 10 December 2006, McIntosh stated his position that a Young Earth was his personal conviction, but that this was tangential to the scientific claims of Intelligent Design. ^[56]

Professor Stuart Burgess, Professor of Design & Nature, and Head of Department at the University of Bristol ^[57], and member of the board of reference with Truth in Science appeared on a radio interview with BBC Northern Ireland on 18 April 2004 ^[58]. Burgess stated his position that the Earth "is around 6000 years old, that's what the bible says". In drawing a conjunction between science and religion, Burgess said that one's choice of explanation was "faith versus faith", and that "either you have faith in evolution or faith in creation". Burgess went on to concede "that the Earth has the appearance of great age" on the grounds that "the bible says that God created a mature Earth, and a mature universe, with Adam mature, and trees being mature". The interviewer quizzed Burgess on the matter of a deceptive God. In his response, Burgess explained, "when man came into the universe he would have that fully functioning universe ready to enjoy". In response to further challenges, Burgess said that the Big Bang is a religious faith, which contradicts the first law of thermodynamics. In his penultimate question, the interviewer, William Crawley, asked Burgess "You're not concerned that you're messing up the minds of young people by giving them the impression that they have to commit scientific suicide in order to be believers?" to which Burgess responded: "My main concern, is that on the day of Judgment, people will not say to God 'my excuse is the theory of evolution', for not believing in God, because God will say that is not an excuse".

Professor Stuart Burgess has since written and published a book, called "Hallmarks of Design", which compares biological structures, for example, genetic coding, to sets of engineering drawings. Burgess draws the inference that a designer must have designed such structures. ^[59]

[edit] Truth in Science and Intelligent Design

[edit] Basic types

At least one article on the Truth in Science website uses scientific creationist terminology ^[60] to describe animal species. Scientific creationism uses the term "basic types" ^[61] as an alternative to that of speciation. Basic type biology addresses the charge that creationists reject changes within species, by allowing for microevolution within those types, but arguing against macroevolution.

"Each tree in the orchard represents a distinctly different group of organisms – what we might call a Basic Type – and each originated separately. In this non-evolutionary view, they cannot be traced back to a universal common ancestor. Nevertheless, each Basic Type is a broad group probably encompassing many species. While each Basic Type originated separately, a great deal of variation has occurred within the created group. For instance, all dogs – including wolves, coyotes, jackals, dingos and domestic dogs – probably belong to the same Basic Type. However, dogs are distinctly different from, and unrelated to, other groups (e.g. cats, bears, weasels). Basic type biology, pioneered by Professor Siegfried Scherer and colleagues in Germany, seeks to identify the original Basic Types using hybridization (cross-breeding) studies (Scherer 1993). Scientists in the USA have suggested additional criteria for identifying and classifying the Basic Types, some of which can also be applied to fossil organisms (Wood and Murray 2003). This has developed into an exciting field of biological study with its own conferences and publications." Horse Evolution (2005), Paul Garner BSc (Hons), FGS, Truth in Science.

[edit] Bacterial flagellum

On October 11, 2006, a reader, Chris Preeder, wrote a letter to The Times newspaper highlighting "scientific errors" on the Truth in Science website, including that the organisation denies the evolution of Bacterial flagellum ^[62]. In response, Richard Buggs of the Truth in Science scientific panel published a letter in the Times stating:

"I do not know of a good evolutionary pathway for the development of the bacterial flagellum. In his latest book, Professor Richard Dawkins identifies a single possible intermediate step. This hardly constitutes a pathway."^[63]

[edit] Supporters

Nick Cowan, a former head of science and currently a chemistry teacher at the Blue Coat School ^[64], in Liverpool, welcomed the Truth in Science DVD information packs. Cowan, a creationist, stated in The Independent newspaper, that "Darwinism is a religion", and that "the debate between evolution and intelligent design is not a debate between science and religion, it's between religion and religion" ^[65]. Cowan told reporters at The Independent that he planned to use the information packs in his lessons.

The Truth in Science website reported on Monday 1 January 2007, that twelve senior academics wrote to the Prime Minister and Education Secretary in support of Truth in Science ^[66].

The group, led by Norman Nevin OBE, Professor Emeritus of Medical Genetics, Queen's University of Belfast and included Antony Flew, former Professor of Philosophy at Reading University, reportedly praised Truth in Science for highlighting the "severe limitations concerning origins", and that Darwinism is not necessarily "the best scientific model to fit the data that we observe".

According to Truth in Science, the other signatories were: David Back, Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Liverpool; Steve Fuller (social epistemologist), Professor of Sociology at Warwick University; Mart de Groot, Director, Retired, Armagh Astronomical Observatory; Terry Hamblin, Professor of Immunohaematology, University of Southampton; Colin Reeves, Professor of Operational Research at Coventry University and John Walton, Professor of Chemistry, St Andrews University, as well as the three University Professors who are members of the TiS Board and Council.

[edit] Critical reception

[edit] From notable religious figures and organisations

Truth in Science and the claims of Intelligent Design have been criticised by leading scientists and at least one prominent member of the Church of England. In December 2006, Colin Slee, the Dean of Southwark, said: “Everything needs to be explored, so that children can ask sensible questions. Though I see no huge difficulty with exploring intelligent design or creationism or flat Earth, they happen to be misguided, foolish and flying in the face of all evidence. I see no problem with Darwinian theory and Christian faith going hand in hand” ^[67], -- Colin Slee, Dean of Southwark, The Times, December 2006.

Ekklesia, [3] a United Kingdom theological think-tank accused Truth in Science and the advocates of Intelligent Design of misrepresenting the bible, and that Creationism and Intelligent Design are not on par with accepted scientific theories. According to one Ekklesia contributor, Geologist and Anglican vicar Michael Roberts ^[68], the material on the Truth in Science website is carefully packaged to hide it's Young Earth Creationist roots ^[69]. Simon Barrow, co-director of the UK Christian think tank Ekklesia outlined his critique of Intelligent Design creationism, and pseudo-scientific explanations for the universe: “Creationism and ID are in no way comparable to scientific theories of origins and have no place in the modern science classroom. They also distort mature Christian understandings of the universe as coming into being through the whole world process, not through reversals or denials of that process. The roots of creationism, whether in its ‘hard’ form, or in attenuated ID ideas, lie not in science but in misinterpretations of the Bible. Claims that such notions can be justified from a ‘literal’ reading of Genesis are nonsensensical. This book has not one, but two ‘creation stories’. They differ widely in detail, are highly figurative, and were written to combat fatalistic Ancient Near East cosmogonies by stressing the underlying goodness of the world as a gift of God, not to comment on modern scientific matters” ^[70] -- Ekklesia, 25 September 2006.

[edit] From notable secular figures and organisations

In a Guardian newspaper article, dated 27 November 2006, Professor Lewis Wolpert of University College London, attacked Intelligent Design, and the ambitions of Truth in Science: "There is just no evidence for intelligent design, it is pure religion and has nothing to do with science. It should be banned from science classes," ^[71], -- Professor Lewis Wolpert, Guardian Unlimited, 27 November, 2006.

Although Truth in Science's material discusses the scientific claims of Intelligent Design, the Royal Society stated, "intelligent design has far more in common with a religious belief in creationism than it has with science" ^[72].

In October 2006, a Science organisation called Science, Just Science reviewed the DVD information packs sent by Truth in Science to the heads of science at all United Kingdom secondary schools in September 2006.

The arguments are presented in the style of an educational film, and are generally presented among needlessly lengthy scientific descriptions and impressive visuals, which help to make creationist arguments sound reasonable to anyone without scientific training in the relevant disciplines. Anyone familiar with creationists will recognize their standard tactics including appeals to emotion, arguments from ignorance, misdirection and occasionally blatant falsehoods ^[73], -- Science, Just Science, October 2006.

[edit] Organisation

According to the Truth in Science website ^[74] the organisation is run by a Board of Directors who are advised by a Council of Reference and a Scientific Panel. As of 18 February 2007 these are listed as follows

[edit] Board of Directors

• Professor Andrew McIntosh, Professor of Thermodynamics at the University of Leeds, an evangelical Christian and creationist ^[75] and, as of 2 June 2003, was a member of the council of reference of Biblical Creation Ministries ^[76].
• Willis B. Metcalfe (Acting Chairman), an evangelical Christian publisher.
• John Perfect, a teacher.
• Maurice Roberts, Minister of the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) ^[77] and former teacher of classics.

[edit] Council of Reference

• Stuart Burgess, Professor of Design and Nature, and Head of Mechanical Engineering at Bristol University, has a Diploma in Theology from the London Reformed Baptist Seminary ^[78].
• John Blanchard, author of popular books including Evolution: fact or fiction? Has Science Got Rid of God? and Does God Believe in Atheists?
• Gerard A. Chrispin, A lawyer and director of Daylight Christian Prison Trust.
• George Curry, Minister of Elswick Parish Church (St Stephen and St Paul), Newcastle upon Tyne.
• David Harding, Pastor of Milnrow Evangelical Church, Lancashire.
• Dr Russell Healey, teacher of mathematics.
• Derek Linkens Professor and Dean Emeritus, Department of Automatic Control and Systems Engineering, University of Sheffield.

[edit] Scientific Panel

• Dr. Richard Buggs, "a botanist with a special interest in the ecology and evolution of polyploidy in Mercurialis annua (L.)" ^[79].
• Dr. Arthur Jones
• Dr. Tim Wells, Senior Lecturer in Neuroendocrinology at Cardiff University.

[edit] See also

• Argumentum ad populum
• Argument from Design
• Center for Science and Culture
• Creation-evolution controversy
• Critical Analysis of Evolution
• Emmanuel Schools Foundation
• Evolution
• Evolution as theory and fact
• False analogy
• God
• Misunderstandings of evolution
• Teach the Controversy
• Watchmaker analogy
• Wedge Strategy
• William Paley

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• Truth in Science. Welcome to Truth in Science. Retrieved on 2007-01-31.

• Jackson, Nick. "Does creationism have a place in the classroom?", The Independent - Online Edition > Schools, 2006-10-12. Retrieved on 2007-01-07.

[edit] Media

• Newsnight: Creationism in UK schools, a debate between Andy McIntosh and Lewis Wolpert

• Guardian Unlimited Podcast Blog: Science Weekly for December 11: Creationism special